Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenfda for 2014-04-01

[Stuart Yoder]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:57 AM
> To: Peter Maydell
> Cc: Juan Quintela; KVM devel mailing list; qemu list; Yoder Stuart-
> B08248; Alistair Francis; Peter Crosthwaite; Christoffer Dall
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenfda for 2014-04-01
> 
> 
> On 10.04.2014, at 17:52, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On 10 April 2014 16:49, Alexander Graf <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> For the next call, I would propose to revive the "platform bus"
> >> (aka: how to create non-PCI devices with -device) discussions
> >> to make sure we're all on the same page.
> >
> > I rather suspect we are not :-)  Do you have a link to
> > the current proposals for prior reading?
> 
> The only thing I could find is the old thread about my platform bus
> approach (which Anthony disliked):
> 
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-07/msg03614.html
> 
> So from what I remember the plan moving forward was to have a special
> device type similar to my platform bus devices that you can just create
> using -device, no bus involved. The machine file would then loop through
> them, interpret the "I sit at address x" and "I want interrupt number y"
> fields to link them to whatever the machine model thinks is a good fit.
> 
> The same way the machine model today has to have knowledge on each device
> tree node type it generates, it would do the same for these devices. So
> the machine has to have awareness of all the "funky special options" a
> device tree node receives - the same as for any other device. Just that
> in this case it wouldn't be able to hardcode them, but have to generate
> them on the fly when it sees a device in the object tree.

Another link that may help from a call we had back in Sept:
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2013-September/005532.html

Stuart